Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T22:50:15.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protestant Veneration of Mary: Luther’s Interpretation of the Magnificat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

Gerhard Müller
Gerhard Müller*
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen
Get access

Extract

According to Protestant understanding, veneration of Mary is only permissible when it is based on Scripture. When such scriptural proof is given, it should neither be used polemically against other churches nor be dismissed on account of unbiblical influences and pressures: the Bible is, and remains, the one foundation for all Evangelical Christians. In the New Testament, Mary is mentioned in particular in the birth stories of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Beyond this, she appears only incidentally in the accounts of Jesus’ ministry. Here a certain detachment from the activities of Jesus can be discerned. None the less, in the Gospel of John, Mary is seen as standing under the Cross. This, in turn, helps to explain how the veneration of Mary originally arose. At the same time, however, veneration of Mary remains a part of the veneration of Jesus, as die Lord of the Anointed God.

Type
Part I. The Church in Europe
Information
Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 8: Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England, and Scotland, 1400-1643 , 1991 , pp. 99 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1991 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Matthew if.;Luke if.

2 Cf. Mark 3. 31–5.

3 Cf. John 19.25-7.

4 Cf. Walter Delius, Geschichte der Marienverehrung (Munich, 1963).

5 Cf. Luke 1.48.

6 Cf. Luthers Werke (Selected works), ed. Otto Clemen, 2 (Berlin, 1934), pp. 133–87. Page refer ences for quotations from Luther are from this edition. (An English translation of Luther’s exposition of the Magnificat is available in Luther’s Works, 21, ed. Pelikan, J. (St Louis, 1956), pp. 297–358.)Google Scholar See also Schwarz, Reinhard, ‘“Die zarte Mutter Christi”. Was uns Luther uber Maria lehrt’, Zeitwende, 57 (1986), pp. 204–16Google Scholar. Schwarz summarizes Luther’s interpretation of the Magnificat with ‘three essential characteristics of faith’: ‘acceptance of one’s lowly estate’, ‘acceptance of God’s promise’, and ‘entering in praise of God’.

7 Luthers Werke, 2, p. 135, 14–31.

8 Ibid., p. 131, 3–5.

9 Ibid., p. 137, 39.

10 Ibid., p. 138, 12–14.

11 Ibid., p. 142, 32.

12 Ibid., p. 159, 35f.

13 Ibid., p. 160, 28–30.

14 Ibid., p. 144, 5.

15 Ibid., p. 161, 16, 28, 30.

16 Ibid., p. 157, 40; p. 185, 3; cf. Hans Düfel, Luthers Stellung zur Marienverehrung (Göttingen, 1968).

17 Luthers Werke, 2, p. 159, 27–30.

18 Ibid., pp. 159, 40–160, 2.

19 Cf. ibid., p. 142, 2–6.

20 Cf. Ibid., pp. 134, 31–135, 2.

21 Cf. ibid., p. 142, 10–13.

22 Luthm Werke, 2, p. 142, 16f., 25–8.

23 Ibid., pp. 135, 33–136, 4.

24 Ibid., p. 143, 10–15.

25 Ibid., p. 143. 35f.

26 Cf. ibid., p. 144, 6f.

27 Ibid., p. 144, 11–16, 20–2.

28 Ibid., p. 144, 26f., 30–2.

29 Cf. ibid., pp. 144, 38–145, 5; p. 145, 10–12.

30 Ibid., p. 145, 20.

31 Ibid., p. 146, 6–8.

32 Cf. ibid., p. 146, 20–3.

33 Cf.ibid., p. 146, 29–31; p. 147, 19f.;p. 147, 22–9.

34 Cf.ibid., p. 148, 11f.; p. 148, 37f.

35 Luthers Werke, 2, p. 149, 9f.; p. 150, 18–35.

36 Cf. ibid., p. 151, 18–20.

37 Ibid., p. 152, 17–20.

38 Ibid., p. 152, 35f.; cf. p. 153, 36–8.

39 Cf.ibid., p. 153, 12–19; p. 153. 32–4.

40 Ibid., p. 154, 7f.; p. 154, 15–17.

41 Ibid., p. 154, 26–33.

42 Ibid., p. 155, 18–27.

43 Luthers Wetke, 2, p. 155, 32–8.

44 Ibid., p. 155, 38f.; p. 156, 1.

45 Ibid., p. 156, 3–15.

46 Ibid., p. 156, 16–20.

47 Ibid., p. 156, 21–8.

48 Ibid., p. 156, 38.

49 Ibid., p. 157, 1–5.

50 Ibid., p. 157, 17–19.

51 Ibid., p. 157, 38f.

52 Cf.ibid., p.158, 10.

53 Cf.ibid., p. 158, 28f.

54 Cf. Luthers Wrtfc, 2, p. I $9, 27–30.

55 Ibid., p. 160, 35–8;p. 162, 37–40; p. 164, 2–7.

56 Ibid., p. 165, 5.

57 Cf.ibid., p. 168, 35.

58 Cf. ibid., p. 170, 23–30.

59 Ibid., p. 170, 36.

60 Ibid., p. 172, 2; p. 170, 21–3.

61 Ibid., p. 172, 36f.; p. 174, 5–7.

62 Cf.ibid., p.175, 9–14; p. 175, 34.

63 Cf. ibid., p, 175, 38f.

64 Cf. ibid., p. 176, 14–16.

65 Ibid., p. 176, 23–6.

66 Cf. Luthers Werke, 2, p. 177, 9–15.

67 Ibid., p. 179, 20–2.

68 Cf.ibid., p. 178, 1–6.

69 Cf.ibid., p. 180, 3–8; p. 180, 37–9.

70 Cf.ibid., p. 181, 6f.

71 Ibid., p. 181, 13; p. 181, 20–2.

72 Ibid., p. 183, 12f.

73 Ibid., p. 183, 25–7.

74 Ibid., p. 183, 36–8.

75 Ibid., p. 184, 29–33. In his writing “That Jesus Christ was born a Jew’ (1523), Luther argued to similar effect. Cf. Müller, Gerhard, ‘Tribut an den Geist der Zeit. Martin Luthers Stellung zu denjuden’, Evangelische Kommentare, 16 (1983), pp. 306–8Google Scholar.

76 Luthers Werke, 2, p. 185, 3f.

77 Cf.ibid., p. 176, 15.